Blog Stats

Flag Counter since 20091011

Hit Count Since 20110428

Author Archive

It was bad enough when they had uber-loon Keith Olbermann sit in with them on the pre-game and halftime, and when they engaged in doltish PC antics. Now, Bob Costas (who I already can’t stand for his condescending delivery of practically everything) decides to lecture us all about gun control:

“Our current gun culture,” [sports writer Jason] Whitlock wrote, “ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.”

“Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football, will be analyzed. Who knows?”

“But here,” wrote Jason Whitlock, “is what I believe: If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Because you’re an idiot, Whitlock. And you too, Costas. Belcher was obviously suffering from some severe mental and emotional issues. Thinking that because he may not have had access to a gun he wouldn’t have killed his girlfriend and himself is wishful thinking at best, and plain stupidity at worst. Not to mention that handguns enhance people’s safety every freakin’ day.

It’s bad enough I tuned in to see how my second favorite football team (Eagles) was faring against “America’s Team” (Cowboys) last evening. I certainly didn’t need this sanctimonious garbage on a football game yet again. It’s one thing for Costas to say “Looks like the gun control debate may resurface” or something to that effect, but don’t f’in lecture me.

I’ll never be tuning into Sunday Night Football henceforth. Who needs it. I’ll just scope the constantly updating ESPN.com game schematics.

Like this:

If anything demonstrates the current administration’s radicalism on racial issues, it’s its predilection to utilize the concept of “disparate impact” to justify remedial measures — even when there has been NO demonstrated discrimination/prejudice/bigotry whatsoever. The latest incident comes from Pepsi, where the company “has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training” to [primarily] African-Americans after the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) went after it for — GASP! — not granting full-time employment to applicants who had arrest records:

In a press release on Wednesday, the Obama administration announced that Pepsi “has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training”after a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment.” The press release says that, under that policy, “job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense,” and that the policy “also denied employment to applicants from [sic] employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses.”

The very concept of “disparate impact” preposterously overrides what should be how law deals with discrimination. It automatically assumes “invidious intent” on the part of the so-called offender. Did Pepsi actually plan to exclude blacks with its policy? Of course not. The fact that blacks disproportionately have more criminal records doesn’t factor into the equation — even though it obviously should. And, as it should in other arenas, like school discipline (also mentioned in the link above). Consider: Would the EEOC seriously consider investigating the NBA or NFL for its “disparate impact” against white athletes? Of course not. The leagues set a standard, and if players meet it, they’re put on a team. How is Pepsi’s standard any different? Doesn’t a company have a justifiable interest in security … by excluding criminals from employment (or certain areas of employment)? Of course it does. But this doesn’t matter to “progressive” racial bean counters.

Another example of this lunacy comes from our old (literally) pal Perry. At First Street Journal, he’s been hijacking numerous threads attempting to convince (futilely) anyone who will listen that voter ID laws are “voter suppression” — utilizing the “disparate impact” reasoning. African-Americans, among others, will be “disproportionately affected” by such laws. But, as was argued by, among others, commenter “Koolo” there, such a rationale must explain an “invidious intent.” Programs like affirmative action are permissible because their discrimination is not, supposedly, “invidious.” Likewise, a general requirement that voters show a photo ID at a polling station is not “invidious,” despite how much progressive morons like Perry think they are.

Yeah. That’s exactly right. We are not, we, there may be liberals on TV at MSNBC, but the network is not operating with a political objective. Whereas Fox is operating with a political objective to elect Republican candidates, and particularly, to elect Republican candidates Roger Ailes likes. I think Roger Ailes is a really good TV executive, but their operation is essentially a political operation to elect Republicans.

The sadly hilarious aspect of this utter nonsense is that way too many “progressives” really believe what Maddow says. Our idiot nemesis Perry does, as do the microcephalic dolts over at Delaware Liberal. Yet, I’ve rarely met a conservative who doesn’t readily admit that Fox News has a conservative bias. So, tell me — who’s operating with facts? Who’s existing in reality? Liberals or conservatives?

We are truly living in an age when people blatantly outright deny what their own eyes tell them.

Like this:

As reported by Ace, TX Governor Rick Perry has proposed as many as eight constitutional amendments he’d like to see ratified if he becomes president. Some are good ideas, some aren’t so good. Let’s take a gander and judge …

Organized Prayer in Public Schools Amendment. The first question is, “organized by whom?” If it’s school officials, forget it. As it is currently, schools are permitted to have Bible study groups with school official sponsors, provided they meet after school hours. And students (and staff) are permitted to pray already — silently — and many districts allow for an “official” moment of silence to do said praying if one so chooses. In today’s vastly diverse America, “officially” sanctioned prayer is a terrible idea. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: LAME.

Pro-Life Amendment. While I respect (and even agree) with Perry’s sentiments on this, I thought conservatives were all about federalism. One of the major complaints about Roe v. Wade is that it took the decision about abortion away from the individual states, allowing for abortion across the land (with certain restrictions). I’d also want to see what, if any, exceptions would be made under the amendment. Rape? Incest? Life of mother? HUBE-O-METER SAYS: UNDECIDED.

Pro-Marriage Amendment. Again, what’s the big deal about letting states decide how they’ll treat marriage? Not allowing such is something that conservatives should abhor. In this respect, social conservatives aren’t much different than liberals in extending federal reach into areas where it ain’t wanted. Admittedly, of course, the former’s method is more representative and more difficult a process; however, the results end up the same. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: LAME.

Balanced Budget Amendment. “Bring it on,” is all I can say here. Anything that mandates that we get our fiscal house in order should be OK with everyone. Most versions of such an amendment usually have emergency measure exemptions; I assume Perry’s would too. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: BRILLIANT.

Repeal of 16th Amendment. Again, a hearty “Bring it on!!” The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, knew such a tax was an abomination; apparently, our politicians in the early part of the last century thought (wrongly) that they were wiser. The dreaded 16th Amendment gave rise to the United States’ own version of the KGB (the IRS), and philosophically it runs afoul of the 13th Amendment in that it mandates uncompensated servitude (employers doing the work for government withholding taxes — yeah, I know that’s a very libertarian argument, but it’s a damn good one). It also was ratified under very suspicious circumstances (see: The Law That Never Was). Of course, it’ll take a good plan to replace the federal income tax; I’ve always been in favor of a national sales tax as a replacement, as it would give consumers the choice as to when, where and how to pay their taxes (i.e. for things they want). But that doesn’t seem to be Perry’s idea. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: BRILLIANT.

Repeal of 17th Amendment.This site gives a very detailed examination of the pros and cons of the 17th Amendment — direct election of senators — and at least in this realm, Perry’s penchant for minimal [federal] government power seems consistent with conservatism. However, in my view, more democracy is better in this area, and if you think we have gridlock in Washington now, imagine what it’ll be like when state legislatures refuse to choose US senators due to in-fighting, leading to numerous vacancies in the federal Senate. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: LAME.

Abolition of Lifetime Tenure for Judges. I happen to agree with the philosophy that appointment of judges (and lifetime tenure), rather than the election of them, serves to make judges less political. But whether this philosophy actually holds true is another matter. I tend to doubt it. We all know how the US Supreme Court will decide on most issues, because it has a clear conservative and liberal bloc. These justices’ appointment and lifetime tenure hasn’t made them any less political. Thus, all that being said, I don’t see a hassle with a definitive time limit on the tenure of federal judges, some or all of them. Perry’s idea is for an 18-year limit, staggered so that every two years a certain number’s terms are done. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: BRILLIANT.

Congressional Veto Over SCOTUS Decisions Amendment. Again, those very wise Founders devised a way by which Congress can thwart a [lousy] Supreme Court decision: the constitutional amendment. (Y’know, the very thing Rick Perry likes proposing!) Perry’s amendment would allow a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate to nullify a SCOTUS decision, thus making the [amendment] process considerably streamlined — no three-quarters of state legislatures needed. I agree with Perry himself that this “risks increased politicization of judicial decisions,” and besides, you wouldn’t really need this amendment if the lifetime tenure of judges is abolished. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: LAME.

Share this:

Like this:

In the far-left The Nation today (via The Corner) we’re supposed to shake our heads and let a tear roll down our collective cheek for this guy:

A few years ago, Joe Therrien, a graduate of the NYC Teaching Fellows program, was working as a full-time drama teacher at a public elementary school in New York City. Frustrated by huge class sizes, sparse resources and a disorganized bureaucracy, he set off to the University of Connecticut to get an MFA in his passion—puppetry. Three years and $35,000 in student loans later, he emerged with degree in hand, and because puppeteers aren’t exactly in high demand, he went looking for work at his old school. The intervening years had been brutal to the city’s school budgets—down about 14 percent on average since 2007. A virtual hiring freeze has been in place since 2009 in most subject areas, arts included, and spending on art supplies in elementary schools crashed by 73 percent between 2006 and 2009. So even though Joe’s old principal was excited to have him back, she just couldn’t afford to hire a new full-time teacher. Instead, he’s working at his old school as a full-time “substitute”; he writes his own curriculum, holds regular classes and does everything a normal teacher does. “But sub pay is about 50 percent of a full-time salaried position,” he says, “so I’m working for half as much as I did four years ago, before grad school, and I don’t have health insurance…. It’s the best-paying job I could find.”

Life is all about choices, Joe. You freely left your job as a full-time teacher to pursue a degree, and then hopefully subsequent career, in puppetry. You freely understood that jobs in such a field aren’t very numerous, and the pay (and bennies)? Better than that of a NYC public school teacher? Heh.

“Surprisingly,” when this didn’t work out, you found you couldn’t be hired back at your old gig. At least not full-time. So, naturally, instead of accepting the consequences of your free (and poor) choices and either waiting it out until times improve and/or still looking elsewhere, you’ve decided to join the OWS movement to … protest the result of your freely chosen career moves.

Indeed, the article goes on to note Joe “was ‘totally won over by the Occupation’s spirit of cooperation and selflessness,’” and

… has already produced a museum’s worth of posters, poetry readings, performance-art happenings, political yoga classes and Situationist spectacles like the one in which an artist dressed in a suit and noose tie rolled up to the New York Stock Exchange in a giant clear plastic bubble to mock the speculative economy’s inevitable pop.

Just imagine how Joe could be supplementing his income using that energy at a part-time job (or two).

Like this:

… about “sitting on the sidelines” during the nascent civil rights movement in the 50s and early 60s … forgetting that he admitted he does precisely the same thing for the reason Cain’s father told Cain. Check it:

Where do you think black people would be sitting on the bus today if Rosa Parks had followed your father’s advice [for Herman not to make trouble if told to sit in the back of the bus; my note, Cain was 9 years old at the time of Parks’ act of defiance.]

You watched black college students from around the country and white college students from around the country come to the south and be murdered, fighting for the rights of African-Americans; do you regret sitting on the sidelines at that time?

So, Crazy Larry chides Mr. Cain, yet admitted himself that he doesn’t criticize radical Muslims like he should … because he fears for his life:

HUGH HEWITT: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

O’DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.

HEWITT: Well, that’s candid.

O’DONNELL: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HEWITT: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

O’DONNELL: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

Nothing like an admitted socialist like O’Donnell lecturing a black man on what he “should have done” during the civil rights movement when he was a minor and a young college student (because, in part, he feared violence), yet is afraid to do his job as an adult because he fears for his life.

Like this:

They’re at it again. Surprise, that! They still beat the “racist” drumbeat against the Tea Party against all evidence (and/or lack thereof) so when there is ANY connection to a Republican with something obviously racist — no matter how remote — well, they’re gonna LET. YOU. KNOW!! Check it:

So, Rick Perry’s family had a hunting lease on a piece of land that featured a large boulder. On the boulder—either as signage, or a graffiti—was the term “Niggerhead.” As soon as Perry’s family started leasing the land, they painted the rock over. Yet the offensive name was still visible through the paint, and people saw it.

So the Perry family, which never owned this property, eventually turned the rock over to make sure that the offensive term could never be seen. (How much did that cost, by the way? Getting heavy boulder-turning machinery to a hunting camp couldn’t be cheap.)

The Washington Post was able to find multiple people who were willing to claim that the word was visible on the rock while the Perrys were leasing the property—and using it intermittently—back in the 1980s. What the people at the Post apparently cannot reproduce is a picture of the rock. Even though the legend was supposedly very prominent, possibly official signage for that hunting camp, and so difficult to paint over that the word showed through the paint.

Ironically, Perry was a Democrat during most (if not all) of the timeframe in question. That’s probably why it wasn’t worthy of a mention then, but is now, now that Perry is a member of the GOP.

Like this:

MSDNC’s Keith Olbermann replacement, “Crazy” Larry O’Donnell, went on yet another idiotic rant the other night, this time about GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry:

And secondly, the Republican party of the 21st century, if we are to judge by the debate audiences, has obviously lost its soul . . . This Twilight Zone: how can this happen? Here’s their favorite killer, state-sanctioned killer up there. They boo him after he calls them heartless.

Right. So now we’re going to judge the entire GOP by the reactions/utterances of a few idiots at some debates. Boy, this tactic sounds familiar — what was done to the Tea Party! Y’know, I wonder why when a few assorted knuckleheads at Democratic events make a scene that the entire party isn’t so labeled … nah. I don’t wonder why. It’s so pathetically obvious by now, why. Yeesh.

Oh, and Larry — if you’re so concerned about “state-sanctioned killing,” when will you do a semi-coherent rant about liberal states’ abortion policies? If you’re SOOOO concerned about the government getting involved in “killing,” where’s the concern about purely innocent life? Why do so-called “progressives” seem to always reserve their outrage for the executions of heinous killers? Our old friend Perry is a textbook example (surprise!) of this; in comments here and at CSPT he believes he has a consistent “pro-life” view because he “personally” is against abortion and capital punishment. However, when pressed on the issue, he admitted that he “doesn’t have the right” to tell a woman what to do with her body … but he does believe it his duty (right) to lobby state legislatures to abolish the death penalty. The counter to this is, obviously, why does Perry believe he has the right to overturn what a jury and judge(s) have determined through a lengthy judicial process when it comes to a brutal killer … but not to tell a woman she cannot terminate the life of a 100% innocent baby?

It makes not one iota of moral sense. Much like, as you may have recently read, his views on Israel and the Palestinians which are also shared by far too many fellow “progressives.”

Like this:

His blog is called, remarkably, “Bridging the Gap.” Why? Because, apparently, he wants both sides to “come together” to solve our nation’s problems. We’re talking about our old pal Perry. However, much like the LGOMB, he doesn’t really mean it. They are just words.

Now I am no history buff, but I do know this: Many of the Founders were slave owners, women were not permitted to vote, and the Founders conceived of an electoral college to protect the powerful from the will of the people should the people get too much out of line with their voting. (Link.)

This premise was then challenged by me, among others. Perry refused to back back up his claim about the Electoral College.

It is quite obvious you’re not a history buff, Herr Fossil, for you, like way too many faux “progressives,” seek to impose 21st century values upon what were indeed very forward-thinking people. Though many owned slaves (an accepted practice back then, BTW), many spoke out against it and began efforts to cease the practice.

Making a law which made a black man 3/5 of a white man is hardly “working hard to end slavery”, in my view. That slavery persisted for another 70 plus years, with the vestiges of slavery evident to this very day, can hardly be construed as working hard enough to end slavery for once and for all. Moreover, it appears to me that racism remains alive today – ask most any black person about that. Better is not good enough!!!

The very existence of a 3/5 compromise apparently is fine with you, Hube, regardless of when it was instituted. I note that Repubs like yourself are more than happy to strive to restore that 3/5 fraction again, by your actions against ACORN and your current efforts to suppress the vote. Racism is not dead yet in the Republican Party.

That sure is some “gap bridging” there, is it not??

For those who may not know much about the 3/5 Compromise (and are modest enough not to make fools of themselves, like Perry did), take a look. And if Perry is reading, you especially need to look here:

The following false statements are just three examples of inaccurate interpretations that persist regarding the three/fifths compromise :

the 3/5s compromise of 1788 . . . enshrined slavery in the United States Constitution

African Americans in this country were considered only 3/5s human at one point in history.

We tried “compromise” and declared blacks to be 3/5s human.

The gap that Perry really needs to bridge is the one that exists in his head.

I saw the new mutant film this past Tuesday, and I was highly impressed. First of all, don’t expect a lot of consistency when it comes to X-Men film continuity; Hugh Jackman has a Wolverine cameo that will leave you asking questions, not to mention the obvious timeline of the schism between Magneto and Professor X (if they separated in the early 60s, how does that explain “The Last Stand’s” scene with a much older Magneto and Xavier visiting young Jean Grey?). But don’t let this detract from a superb story. And just what makes it superb?

The fact that I couldn’t decide who had the better argument — Magneto or Xavier.

Spoilers ahead! Continue at your own risk!

*************************************************************

The film rehashes the first X-Men film’s opening sequence where a young Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) is forcibly separated from his parents in a Nazi death camp. We see a distraught Erik first manifesting his powers, whereupon he is then sent to Nazi doctor “Mr. Schmidt” — Kevin Bacon — who is at this time unrevealed to be a mutant himself. Schmidt demands the young Erik use his powers to move a coin … or he will shoot his mother right in front of him. When Erik fails to move the coin, Schmidt does just as he promised. A livid Erik then uses his powers to wreck the entire room, but Schmidt is not affected (we don’t know if this was on purpose or due to Schmidt’s as-yet unrevealed powers). He laughs the whole time, basking in the wonderment of the young mutant’s powers. He then gives Erik the coin that he could not move as a token of his … well, whatever it is.

Years later, in 1962, Lehnsherr is now a Nazi hunter, determined to track down and kill Schmidt. Michael Fassbender is simply outstanding as the young adult Lehnsherr. The way he projects the torment of his youth and the absolute hatred of the Nazis is spellbinding. And, of course, it is this very torment that shapes his attitudes towards homo sapiens in the “battle” between humans and mutants. And y’know what? It’s very hard to disagree with him. Lehnsherr is maniacally devoted to offing any Nazi he comes across, leading up to Schmidt. He at one point heads to Argentina on a lead, and deliciously dispatches of a trio of former Nazis with barely contained satisfaction. The only problem is that Schmidt is not there!

It’s later revealed that Schmidt is Sebastian Shaw, who, in the comics, is a wealthy industrialist and secret inner circle member of the famed Hellfire Club. Shaw’s mutant power is that he’s able to absorb massive quantities of energy and use it against others (or things) — which makes him one very tough person to kill. And this Lehnsherr learns to his regret: The first time he encounters Shaw, Shaw easily disposes of him — flicking him into the sea just as he needs to make a hasty retreat from the Coast Guard.

Eventually Charles Xavier meets up with Erik and the duo begin to track down other mutants via the fledgling Cerebro — which was created by Hank McCoy aka the Beast. (This makes perfect sense as McCoy in the comics was a genius.) Among those who join the pair are Banshee and Havok. Xavier begins a rigid training regimen for his new team, for it’s discovered that Shaw has been working with the Russians in order to start a third — nuclear — world war so that mutants can prosper and become the dominant race on the planet. During this training, it is Xavier who shows Lehnsherr — now “officially” Magneto — how to maximize his powers by “finding the place between serenity and anger.” This is an example of why Magneto, despite his big philosophical differences, feels much affection for Xavier in the first three films.

This is as far as I’ll go in describing much else in the film except for the moment you knew would eventually happen: Magneto finally executing Shaw. Shaw has donned a helmet which prevents any mental tampering (hence, Xavier cannot affect him), and Magneto’s powers are insufficient to stop Shaw as he’s just absorbed the power of a submarine’s nuclear reactor. But as Shaw is crushing the life out of Lehnsherr, Erik manages to use his power to bring forth a metal cable to remove Shaw’s helmet! This immediately allows Xavier to enter Shaw’s mind to paralyze him. And, Magneto takes advantage: He takes out the coin that Shaw/Schmidt gave him right after the Nazi killed his mother … and slowly, and inexorably, drives it through Shaw’s skull.

Personally, I was virtually yelling “YES!” out loud in the theatre. After all, Nazis do make the ultimate bad guys, so killing them rarely invokes feelings of sympathy. Which brings us to the discussion I believe director Bryan Singer wants people to have after seeing the film: Who was right — Magneto or Xavier? (Singer himself is a Jew and is openly gay, both of which are quite relevant backgrounds for anything to do with the X-Men.) In a post-film discussion with my fellow comics-loving pal Brent, I said that ultimately I would side with Xavier because I could not bring myself to kill innocent people on the premise that they might hate and/or kill me. Magneto’s anger with humanity at the end of “First Class” is at least justified because they flat-out betray the mutants after the team had just prevented World War III. Diverting all of the flotilla’s missiles was a legitimate response, in my view, although personally I would have settled on just a demonstration. Nevertheless, I’d warn humanity to leave me alone with the caveat that if you f*** with me, I’ll f*** with you.

I am sure that there were many Jews like Lehnsherr, who faced similar circumstances and would go through hell and high water to seek revenge on Nazi death camp butchers. Many of these folks ended up in Israel. Yet, Israel, for the most part, has adopted my view of the film’s argument. Officially, it tracked down Nazis who had fled justice, captured them, but gave them a full and fair trial for their crimes. But the country soon faced a Nazi-like menace — way too soon after the horror of the Holocaust: Islamist fundamentalism, utilized by the Palestinian Arabs and the adjacent countries of nascent Israel, all seeking to annihilate the Jews. Then, in 1948, and again in 1967 (the Six Day War) and 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), not to mention myriad smaller “skirmishes” in between and after, the Jewish state responded with the aforementioned “You f*** with me, I’ll f*** with you” attitude. The killers of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics felt the wrath of this attitude, and very rightly so.

If the Jewish state had 100% adopted Professor Xavier’s philosophy, it is arguable that Israel might not exist today. If it had 100% adopted Lehnsherr’s (Magneto’s) philosophy, Israel’s territory might be 100 times what it is now, but it would be a pariah state for its actions in so doing. I suppose my point is, Israel, having been founded largely as a result of the butchery of the Holocaust (and with it obviously still fresh in its collective mind), has shown utterly remarkable restraint since its genesis against those who would continue where the Nazis left off. For all the times they’ve been attacked, for how they’re portrayed in the Islamic world, what exactly have they done that even today generates so much outright hatred towards them? Kept some of the land that used to belong to some of its attackers? That’s it!! From where I sit, I wouldn’t fault Israel if it had adopted a much more Lehnsherr-ian line against those who would see her destroyed. Yet, that is the very essence of humanity — of compassion — we see each and every day exhibited by Jewish state: After what they endured as a people throughout the 30s and early 40s, and continued to endure after they established their homeland, they, again, demonstrate the very definition of “humanity.” They could have, many times, utterly vanquished their would-be killers. They did not. They have vigorous debates each and every day about the rightness of their actions with regards to the Palestinians and other Arabs, trying to track down that virtually impossible-to-find balance between freedom and security in such a situation. How many other nations must so endure?

Would that we all could match the humanity of Israel and the Jewish people.

Like this:

Former Newsweek columnist Ellis Cose, who has a new book out on race relations titled The End of Anger, evokes the ‘ol “no sh**, Sherlock” with this incredibly “insightful” comment made on NPR:

What I argue and what I maintain is true is that the sort of societal, official condonement of explicit racism has disappeared, which is to say that even the Tea Party – which, again, appeals to an older, conservative, in many cases racially prejudiced group of people – and then again, let me be very clear. I’m not saying everybody, as far is – who’s a Tea Party supporter is a bigot. I think there are not people who are not. But I think they do appeal very fundamentally, as well, to a lot of people who are.

Now, let’s be adult here. We know that race plays a role in at least some of the attitudes that some people bring to the Tea Party. That’s not going to disappear.

Well gosh, how ’bout that — groups that oppose the Obama agenda may contain some racists! Who’da thought? Of course, the real problem is that way too many in the mainstream media attempt[ed] to portray groups like the Tea Party as predominately racist. Some may say that even one racist is one too many for a group like the Tea Party; however, how often has the MSM (or anyone else, for that matter) ever criticized a left-wing group for the very shady groups that may like what it does? Like, for instance, communists, Maoists, and anarchists that always show up at anti-war demonstrations? Would you ever see Chris Matthews grill a MoveOn.org spokesperson about these folks affiliated with their group? Yeah, right.

This then moves to the ridiculous “kindred spirit” argument that “progressives” like to trot out whenever a popular (and even not-so popular) conservative movement is afoot. In other words, because some shady sub-groups or people may take part in a more mainstream organization, that somehow means the latter “shares” the formers’ values. Again, though, just don’t try to make that same argument about “progressives” and communists/Maoists/anarchists, etc.!

I definitely think it is, otherwise how does one explain the outright unabashed hatred of President Obama coming from regions and from those who have a history of racial prejudices, and coming from a popular right wing radio host who makes no bones about his hatred for Obama, and his racist outlook, both in general and specifically.

Hey, how ’bout that, everybody? Perry definitely thinks that President Obama’s race plays a factor in some people hating him! I wonder how long it took ‘ol Per to come up with that thought??

Ironically, the name of Perry’s blog is “Bridging the Gap” because he supposedly wants to, well, “bridge a gap” between competing political ideologies. But when you paint the most popular talk show host in the country as a racist based on the “information” from a long-discredited smear site, not to mention resort to revisionist history of busing in Delaware to somehow make your “point” (check here for proof of Per’s lame grasp of history), you sure ain’t gonna “bridge” too many “gaps.”

Like this:

I have to admit, I was a bit — just a bit — apprehensive when Mr. John Hitchcock asked me to join Truth Before Dishonor as a part-time contributor. How come? Simple: I was never a member of the Armed Forces.

That’s not to say I didn’t come this close to joining up at several times in my life.

My maternal grandmother really wanted me to try to get into Annapolis. (For the uninformed, which there are probably very few, if any, among this blog’s readers, Annapolis is home to the United States Naval Academy.) Why did she so desire? Because her first husband, Gene, was a Naval aviator in the 1940s and early 1950s. Unfortunately, when my mother was a mere seven years old, a Naval representative appeared at my grandmother’s doorstep one morning in November, 1952. His news forever changed my grandmother’s — and mother’s — life: Gene was practicing night landings on the USS Roosevelt and his plane (a Corsair, still a propeller plane at this time as this was the era of changeover from prop to jet aircraft) crashed into the Mediterranean. His body was never found. Mom never really got to know grandfather Gene, being that he was overseas so much, and my two aunts (mom’s younger sisters) really never got to know him.

I certainly considered the prospect of going to Annapolis intriguing. As you may know, in order to get in, you must at least get one of your state’s US senators to sponsor you, and only a few (two? I cannot recall) from each of the 50 states are selected. My grades in high school were certainly good enough. So, why not give it a try?

Yeah, why not? Here’s why not: I wanted to fly, just like my grandfather. But my vision sucked. I had begun to wear glasses fairly regularly since 10th grade. And wearing specs is essentially a death sentence for prospective pilots. Ultimately, I decided against Annapolis, settling instead for the University of Delaware.

Also in high school as a senior, a Marine recruiter was almost successful in getting me to join up. (He was successful in getting a couple of my track team buddies to join.) Ultimately in that case, my father got on the phone (because the recruiter called constantly) and told the guy that I wasn’t interested, even though I actually was undecided.

As a college sophomore, I went into the Armed Forces recruiting center on Main Street in Newark (DE) one day to inquire about the Reserves. Unexpectedly, the recruiter was a complete prick, basically telling me to “forget it.” I dunno what the deal was; keep in mind this was the height of the Reagan era when the military experienced a renewed respect and enrollment numbers weren’t an issue. Maybe this dude had already reached his quota. It’s not like I was an undesirable specimen, after all … I wasn’t some Steve Rogers begging to be accepted; I was in good shape. Who knows. Again, maybe it’s because the military had witnessed a new-found respect now that Ronald Reagan was president. It certainly made sense, after all.

Right before college graduation I took one more chance: I went to the Naval recruitment center on North Broad Street in Philly to take their aptitude test. It consisted of two parts — a general knowledge test, which you had to pass in order to continue on, and then a specific pilots test. There were about ten of us there, including a gent wearing a Los Angeles Rams jacket (the Rams were still in LA in the late 80s, yes) which immediately made him a kindred spirit. (If you don’t know from reading The Colossus of Rhodey, I am possibly the biggest Rams fan ever.) He and I were two of only three allowed to continue after the general knowledge test. So, on to the pilots exam. Interestingly, every multiple choice question had a choice “E” which said “I don’t know.” I figured it’d be stupid to always fill that one out if I had even a slight hankering of what the right answer was; I only filled in “E” if I had absolutely no idea of the correct response.

It wasn’t sufficient. After the test, the Navy guy basically told me that I filled in too many choice “E’s,” but that being in a plane still wasn’t out of the question. I didn’t have my glasses on, so I then told him that I wear specs a lot of the time. He was like, “Oh, I see.” But he said that I could still be in a plane — just not fly. I could be a flight officer.

I decided against it. It was tough, tough decision. But … I wanted to fly — do the flying. If I failed at that (and I understood the chances of that were pretty good) then fine, but I at least wanted the chance. I still have regrets about that decision, not only about accepting that I could have flown (just not as a pilot), but that I didn’t experience something like boot camp. I’ve always been intrigued as to whether I’d make it. (As a college graduate entering flight school, I assume I would have gone through an officers candidate program similar to the one seen in “An Officer and a Gentleman.”) I think I could have, and then beyond that …? Who knows.

Nevertheless, I’ve always had the very highest respect for people in the military, past and present — for the simple fact that they deserve it, above just about all others. These are people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for you and me, and they’re willing to do it for peanuts of a salary and simple, basic living conditions. People who do not understand that, or, simply refuse to, deserve nothing but my (and your) scorn. Period.